Maintenance is one of the most sensitive topic about which we can talk. Whether it has to be paid to the wife, or not the judiciary becomes very sensitive while deciding the topic of the maintenance which is ought to be provided to the petitioner or the respondent.
Under section 24 of the Hindu marriage act, the only section where the husband can ask for the maintenance while the suit is still ending in front of the Hon’ble court. Section 24 of the act says, “Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner’s own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable”
The section has been discussed in many cases where the wife has been held liable to pay the maintenance to the husband where he is actually not able to maintain himself and is having some disability due to which he is not able to pay for the expenditure which he has actually to bear while the suit is still pending in the court of law.
By the means of section 24 of the Hindu marriage act, the clear differentiation has been made between the kinds of the maintenance i.e actual maintenance and pendate lite (which means the maintenance which has to be paid during the pendency of the suit, for meeting the legal expenses which mainly occur for the litigation purposes). Under section 24 of the Hindu marriage act, both petitioner and the respondent can claim for the maintenance, which means the husband can ask for the maintenance under section 24 of the act, if he is not able to maintain himself, and have financial crisis to pay for the legal expenses. The burden of proof here lies with the husband to prove that he has no independent source of income and has no means to maintain himself or pay for the legal expenses which are to be borne by him during the pendency of the suit.
In case of Sandeep Kumar v/s state of Jharkhand (AIR 2004 Jhar 22), It was held that, under section 24, no differentiation has been made between the male and female for the award of the maintenance and in pendate lite, while the pendency of the suit.
In case of kanchan v/s kalmendra (AIR 1993 Bom 493), It was said, “section 24 entitles not only the wife, but also the husband to claim maintenance pendate lite on showing that he has no independent source of income. However, the husband will have to satisfy the court that either due to the physical or mental disability he is handicapped to earn and support his livelihood. It was here, held that since the husband was able bodied and not mentally ill, but only because he has his business closed down he can’t be granted with the maintenance under section 24 of the act.
Conclusion: Section 24 of the Hindu marriage act, has been acting as a boon to the husband who has been indulged in the false cases by the wife, and various accusations have been made on him falsely, which do not have any basis. If the person do not have any independent source of income and have been falsely head in a suit by the wife, the court can ask the wife to pay the pendate lite to the husband during the pendency of the suit within 60 days or as per directed by the court.
By Shradha Sharma
